Guns and Stuff.

[Grunt]

Just now, mirkwood said:

@Grunt we often see the anti Mormon trolls use passive aggressive techniques in their trolling on this this forum.

I know.  I'm just new in my journey.  I'd love to find a place where that just isn't allowed.  We don't allow apostasy in the Temples.  We expect reverence in our meeting houses.  I guess I'd just make a horrible moderator as I'd be really quick with the ban hammer to create what I consider a good environment, even though others may think otherwise.

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@Grunt we often see the anti Mormon trolls use passive aggressive techniques in their trolling on this this forum.

Except, I'm not an anti-Mormon troll. I'm just sussing out Mormon social attitudes, thus far, to see how compatible they are with my own.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[mirkwood]

I love my kids so I teach them how to safely handle firearms.

 

Son #2

 

 

Mirk

 

Best wishes and happy shooting, mirk

Edited May 19, 2018 by mirkwood

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I know.  I'm just new in my journey.  I'd love to find a place where that just isn't allowed.  We don't allow apostasy in the Temples.  We expect reverence in our meeting houses.  I guess I'd just make a horrible moderator as I'd be really quick with the ban hammer to create what I consider a good environment, even though others may think otherwise.

Indeed and totally understandable...

But at the same time we get new people all the time expressing various levels of interest.  And they have various levels of tact.  Sometimes they turn a causal interest into conversion.  We do not want to be banning the next future @Grunt just because they are a bit rough in the beginning.

If that means letting the antis and the trolls play for awhile... its worth it.

 

[zil]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I know.  I'm just new in my journey.  I'd love to find a place where that just isn't allowed.  We don't allow apostasy in the Temples.  We expect reverence in our meeting houses.  I guess I'd just make a horrible moderator as I'd be really quick with the ban hammer to create what I consider a good environment, even though others may think otherwise.

I'm going to assume you have dogs.  My husband wanted them, so I caved - I love critters, just didn't want more to take care of.  Anywho, fortunately, he believed that dogs should be trained, so we went to doggie obedience school (a first for me).  Among the other things I learned is that perhaps the easiest way to punish a dog is to ignore him.  If he's doing something you don't want him to, just ignore him.  Dogs don't like being ignored - it's like the pack is shunning them - very bad, apparently.

IMO, the way we maintain the environment we want is by not responding to posts which are clearly designed raise hackles, so to speak.  The problem is, the entire group has to agree to it.  Newbie comes in, if their post is friendly, we welcome them.  If their post is the equivalent of poking a beehive with a stick, we ignore it.  That takes a lot of self control, a lot of awareness, so it's hard to do.  It's even harder to defuse and calmly address the issue and point out the problems with the OP - something a few here seem to be good at - and more work than most of us want to do, since we're usually here for more relaxed purposes.

That's just my recent conclusion on handing these things.  I respect everyone's right to handle these sorts of posts as they think best.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm going to assume you have dogs.  My husband wanted them, so I caved - I love critters, just didn't want more to take care of.  Anywho, fortunately, he believed that dogs should be trained, so we went to doggie obedience school (a first for me).  Among the other things I learned is that perhaps the easiest way to punish a dog is to ignore him.  If he's doing something you don't want him to, just ignore him.  Dogs don't like being ignored - it's like the pack is shunning them - very bad, apparently.

IMO, the way we maintain the environment we want is by not responding to posts which are clearly designed raise hackles, so to speak.  The problem is, the entire group has to agree to it.  Newbie comes in, if their post is friendly, we welcome them.  If their post is the equivalent of poking a beehive with a stick, we ignore it.  That takes a lot of self control, a lot of awareness, so it's hard to do.  It's even harder to defuse and calmly address the issue and point out the problems with the OP - something a few here seem to be good at - and more work than most of us want to do, since we're usually here for more relaxed purposes.

That's just my recent conclusion on handing these things.  I respect everyone's right to handle these sorts of posts as they think best.

I'm a grunt.  I want to break things that annoy me.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm a grunt.  I want to break things that annoy me.

There is something satisfying about blowing things to bits, isn't there?

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm a grunt.  I want to break things that annoy me.

Ignoring is a good option...  But if you must be blowing things up    you can hit the report a post button...  Vent there (and leave it there if you can).

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. Somehow, I think I will be able to manage being universally ignored by you guys. I'd prefer to talk, but if it can't be, it can't be. It's a bit like what the Jehovah's Witnesses do when they get a problem person who wants a temperate, rational discussion about ideas. They shun them. Is that what Mormons do, given the same problem?

Just asking, not accusing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Regardless of the historical development of the Second Amendment, I think we need deal with the wording as it currently stands*, rather than as it once was.

Back up here.  You've made a jump in logic again with an incorrect assumption.  You're thinking that "as it once was" being different than it is currently AUTOMATICALLY means that the "as it once was" is an incorrect reading.  Wrong.

"As it currently stands" is still being argued about.  People disagree on the meaning of the amendment as it is now.  You've given ONE POSSIBLE reading of the amendment as currently written.  Do you honestly believe that there is only one possible reading of a written phrase?  The fact is that we argue about the meaning of phrases all the time.  We're doing so now.  So, which is correct?

The way we go about determining which interpretation has greater credibility is to look at the original intent.  If we choose anything else (i.e. interpret it in any way we want) what we're really saying is that the written word means nothing.  So, why bother having a written constitution at all?  That makes no sense.

So, the way we understand the original intent is to look at the original definitions of words, the proposals, the discussions, the debates, and the process of how it came to be as it currently stands.  That way we're certain to screen out semantic shift among other traits.

And even as we see it written today, my interpretation (which is shared by 100 million Americans or more) is that with regard to the 2nd Amendment A) The Militia is the body of the people.  And B) The right to bear arms is an independent and inherent right of a free people regardless of the need for a militia.

Quote

Nevertheless, I do not quite see how the quotes you have so helpfully supplied contradict the interpretation I gave. ..

It was not meant to "contradict".

Your basic premise earlier was that the ONLY reason to have the right to bear arms was so that we could help defend the state or country from other parties warring against us.  You gave the example of two states going to war.  My quotes indicate that this was not the meaning of the proposed amendment. 

The entire Bill of Rights enumerates all rights that are inherently human rights.  That to infringe upon these rights is an act of tyranny.  Name ONE other amendment in the Bill of Rights that is NOT about a protection of the inherent rights of the people from an infringement by government?  Name just one.  Any one.... There are none.  But you think that this one is somehow different?  Why?  It isn't supported by the defintions of the words.

Quote

Otherwise, why bother to mention the security of the state and a well regulated militia, at all? Why not just simply and clearly insist that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'? Which is how most Americans understand the amendment, anyway.

Because it was PARALLEL.  I'm not sure if you understand what I mean by that.  They spoke of two things that were both very important and they were BOTH rights of the people.  They were put together because they are inseparably linked.  You can't have a free people without the right to bear arms.  The right to bear arms is the litmus test of whether or not you have a free state. (see below).

First, get it out of your head that the "security of a free state" was about foreign invaders.  That was NEVER part of the original intent.  That was NEVER the meaning of the phrase.  Only modern revisionalists with an agenda take it to mean that way.  But they have no credibiity because they don't acknowledge the reason why it was put there in the first place.

Second, accept the fact that without the right to bear arms, you don't have a free state.  Or at least, you won't have it for long.  You banned guns in 1996.  Give it about 40 years (2036) and you'll be no different than China or Russia.  It usually takes 40 years or so for a societal change to occur because that is how long it takes for the rising generation to gain power.  The way you're talking, it may not even take that long.

Third, when I said that America was founded on the notion that it is better to die on our feet than live on our knees, I absolutely meant that.  Do you know what that is like?  Probably not since British law requires that you're ok with letting people steal your stuff without defending yourself.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm a grunt.  I want to break things that annoy me.

I believe Abraham Lincoln said."Every man enjoys taking an axe to a log.  One gets immediate results."

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Somehow, I think I will be able to manage being universally ignored by you guys. I'd prefer to talk, but if it can't be, it can't be. It's a bit like what the Jehovah's Witnesses do when they get a problem person who wants a temperate, rational discussion about ideas. They shun them. Is that what Mormons do, given the same problem?

Just asking, not accusing.

When a person deliberately misrepresent another persons position. Who claims to want temperate, rational discussion about ideas, but then insults, and ignores the people and ideas he disagrees with... when he does this then you know his claims are a lie.  

It is a natural human reaction for those who want temperate, rational discussion to ignore those that claim that they do but the repeatedly demonstrate by their actions they do not. Our actions are not because we are Mormon, but because we are human.  And we can judge a person by their repeatedly demonstrated actions

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ha Ha! I promise not to put on ignore any of you who pose me any civil question I have no answer to.

Still standing by on the answer to my request for you to define "social injustice."

[2ndRateMind]

Thanks for all that Carborendum. A useful contribution to the discussion all round. Unfortunately, I have to go out shortly, so can't do more than ask this brief question:

If the security of the state, and the well regulated militia, were meant to be separated from the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then why elide them all into the same sentence? Why not have two clauses as follows?

clause 1) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

clause 2) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall be maintained by each State.

Such a wording of the Second Amendment would resolve our differing interpretations decisively, but this is not the wording present.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I know.  I'm just new in my journey.  I'd love to find a place where that just isn't allowed.  We don't allow apostasy in the Temples.  We expect reverence in our meeting houses.  I guess I'd just make a horrible moderator as I'd be really quick with the ban hammer to create what I consider a good environment, even though others may think otherwise.

Hey, Grunt.  I've got an idea.  You always seem to have some great experiences.  We all love it when you share your most recent discovery or latest chapter in your journey.  How about you start a new thread like once a week or two weeks (doesn't have to be a set schedule).  Just talk about a new thought you had or new scripture that impressed itself upon you.  Talk about something funny that happened in church or something along those lines.

I think those would be great seeds for new threads.

Then, just stay away from the trolls.  We'll be eager to listen and encourage you along.

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Still standing by on the answer to my request for you to define "social injustice."

OK, since this thread seems a little more relaxed than the last, I propose to answer it here, rather than there. But, as I just said, I first have an appointment to keep. So, I shall respond on my return.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Thanks for all that Carborendum. A useful contribution to the discussion all round. Unfortunately, I have to go out shortly, so can't do more than ask this brief question:

If the security of the state, and the well regulated militia, were meant to be separated from the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then why elide them all into the same sentence? Why not have two clauses as follows?

clause 1) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

clause 2) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State, shall be maintained by each State.

Such a wording of the Second Amendment would resolve our differing interpretations decisively, but this is not the wording present.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think you need to re-read my last post.  I specifically stated:  They are inseparably linked.  See my previous post.

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

America was founded on the notion that it is better to die on our feet than live on our knees

I've kinda wanted to move to New Hampshire ever since I learned their state motto is "Live Free or Die" - I think most people simply cannot understand that this sentiment is bone-deep in some of us.

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Hey, Grunt.  I've got an idea.  You always seem to have some great experiences.  We all love it when you share your most recent discovery or latest chapter in your journey.  How about you start a new thread like once a week or two weeks (doesn't have to be a set schedule).  Just talk about a new thought you had or new scripture that impressed itself upon you.  Talk about something funny that happened in church or something along those lines.

I think those would be great seeds for new threads.

Then, just stay away from the trolls.  We'll be eager to listen and encourage you along.

I think we could all do this, with a bit of effort - share some thought we had during Sunday School, or some happy or funny experience.  I'll go do that shortly.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I've kinda wanted to move to New Hampshire ever since I learned their state motto is "Live Free or Die" - I think most people simply cannot understand that this sentiment is bone-deep in some of us.

 

There is a spot of land down the road from me for sale.

[2ndRateMind]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think you need to re-read my last post.  I specifically stated:  They are inseparably linked.  See my previous post.

Well that is exactly my point. They are inseparably linked. By that chain of justification. Unless you have a different linkage in mind you have not specified. As for a free people needing some right to keep and bear military grade automatic assault weaponry, irrespective of their criminal past or mental health status,  (which are not checked on purchases at arms fairs, for example) I hope to pick up on that, later. Now, I really must go.

Meanwhile best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

44 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

...Our actions are not because we are Mormon, but because we are human.  And we can judge a person by their repeatedly demonstrated actions

Seems to me the major problem this forum has with me is that it just does not appreciate being shaken out of it's folk-knowledge comfort zone. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way. Many religious people, of many persuasions, are exactly the same way. I do not rate you as any worse than any others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Seems to me the major problem this forum has with me is that it just does not appreciate being shaken out of it's folk-knowledge comfort zone. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way. Many religious people, of many persuasions, are exactly the same way. I do not rate you as any worse than any others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Wrong. I've shaken the tree several times with my non-orthodox views and no one cares. LDS are incredibly tolerant of other views. 

Maybe it's your terrible delivery that comes across as arrogant and snotty? 

Edited May 19, 2018 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

Lets address the "And Stuff" part.  

We have tragedies and we want to "keep kids safe" from them. This is a natural and normal response.

To show logic and reasoning we need to start with some fundamental questions.  Who, What, Where, When, Why, How when these tragedies happen

The who, what, where, and when. While important in the case of school shootings do not seem to have much in the way of preventive value.  (Although in a logical and rational discussion on the topic they are open and fair game if someone wants to discuss them)

It How is what people tend to focus in the cases of mass school shooting.  Under the idea that if you can remove the How then it can not happen.  This is a natural and normal response.  After all if you have a toddler that is seek to touch a hot stove, you remove the toddler and or the heat of the stove.  However when you have a very determined toddler/kid/teenager if you block one "How" they will find another to get what they want. Any parent of such a child knows this.  In the case of shooting blocking guns is the answer to HOW.  But the fact are in every case where guns are blocked violence goes up.  While places with the gun bans might be able to honestly and truly said they have not had a mass shooting since "<Variable Year>" it comes at a cost of higher crime in general and the method of violence changing (usually to knives but other have been mention).

Now people truly state it is much much harder to kill lots of people with a knife.  This is why when guns are hard to get bad guys switch to bombs, cars, planes etc. to fulfill their  mass murdering desires.  Thus we can see while addressing the How can have an impact, but we have to realize in an Logical and Reasoned discussion that we are simply deflecting the problem rather then dealing with it.  If we value life and want to stop tragedies then simply deflecting the problem should not be acceptable.

Yet this deflection is where the conversation always gets dragged back to... Because GUNS!

Figuring out the WHY is clearly the best answer.  Because if we can cancel the WHY we save everyone. Including the shooter who is also a kid we should protect.  Figuring out the why is hard.  Because it involves  understanding someone who for whatever reason is a point we can't accept.  Yet understand we must if we want to truly deal with this problem.  Understand and then act to prevent someone from reaching the state where killing others seems like a acceptable answer to their problems

 

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Seems to me the major problem this forum has with me is that it just does not appreciate being shaken out of it's folk-knowledge comfort zone. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way. Many religious people, of many persuasions, are exactly the same way. I do not rate you as any worse than any others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You have been told exactly and repeatedly why.  You simply refuse to accept any responsibility for your actions

[2ndRateMind]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Still standing by on the answer to my request for you to define "social injustice."

OK. Here I go. 'Social injustice' is the absence of social justice.

So what is 'social justice'? One could write books on this, and doubtless many have, with differing perspectives.

One thing is pretty certain; it's an impossible goal, in this life at least, which is precisely why I believe there must be an afterlife; to give a just God the opportunity to right the wrongs of the world.

But just because it's impossible, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive after it, and make such implementations as we can to make the world that bit more 'socially just'.

And I would advocate that we consider three dimensions of humanity, and three dimensions of community, when we consider how to do this; all with the same goal, that none should be especially disadvantaged for just being who they are, unless they are adjudged criminal, and have privileges legally withdrawn after due process.

The three dimensions of humanity would be: Physical, Mental, and Spiritual.

The three dimensions of community would be: Political, Social, and Economic.

So, from this broad approach we can derive principled targets such as universal suffrage, the eradication of absolute poverty, the complete end of slavery, the medical attempt to stop preventable disease, parity of esteem for physical and mental injuries, freedom of conscience (especially religious worship), and so on.

I hope, unixknight, this is enough to give you some idea of where I am coming from, when I talk in terms of 'social justice'.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind